In contrast, Clinton’s plan calls for a 700 percent increase in solar power. Clinton also promises an economic uplift with new clean-energy jobs, but many of the jobs would be created in the gas industry through a proposed expansion of fracking, gas pipelines, gas power plants and gas exports. Based on claims that patching methane leaks could make gas clean, Clinton and her industry-tied experts now characterize fracked gas as a form of clean energy and promise to eliminate all pipeline leaks. Experts say fixing every leak in the over 2.6 million miles of gas pipelines — in all well sites, distribution lines, compressor stations, storage facilities, power plants and export facilities — is not remotely possible. Just locating leaks is a gargantuan task. It took Southern California Gas Co. over 16 weeks to locate a gushing gas leak in its Aliso Canyon storage facility in a northern neighborhood of Los Angeles, a debacle that occurred just in the last year. According to The Guardian, “the leak was estimated to contribute about a quarter of the state’s climate-altering methane emissions, leading some to call it the worst environmental disaster since the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.” The absence of accurate nationwide baselines for current methane leaks adds to the challenge. According to a 2015 Harvard study, natural gas infrastructures in the Boston region leak at rates 200 percent to 300 percent higher than government estimates. Scientists added that public records pinpointing leaks are based on inadequate data. To make matters worse, the science on methane leak detection is shaky. Over the last six years, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) collaborated with oil and gas companies in an effort to develop a method to eliminate leaks. The companies agreed to partially fund the research, which ultimately cost $18 million dollars. Seventy prominent environmental groups criticized the EDF for promoting fracking. “What EDF is trying to do is put filters on cigarettes,” said Sandra Steingraber, an environmentalist and advocate. “There’s no way we can frack our way to climate stability. There’s no scientific evidence for that.” Steingraber is not the sole debunker of EDF research. An article published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Science & Engineering found a deep flaw in a major EDF study. The study set out to establish the amount of methane leaking from oil and gas industry fracking operations. The EDF’s results, however, “systematically underestimated” the methane leaking into the atmosphere,” according to an article at Public Source. “Such an obvious problem in this high profile, landmark study highlights the need for increased quality assurance in all greenhouse gas measurement programs,” wrote Touché Howard, a methane expert and air quality consultant. According to Howard’s research, the instrument used to take the measurements regularly exhibits failures that result in “the underreporting of natural gas emissions.” In June, a North Carolina environmental group called NC Warn filed a complaint based on this finding. The goal of the EDF-funded University of Texas research team “was not to critically examine the problems but to convince EDF … that no problems existed,” the complaint read. NC Warn further alleged that the faulty EDF-funded study was a “cover-up” involving “scientific fraud and possibly criminal misconduct.” InsideClimateNews reported that “130 organizations including Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, Climate Hawks Vote, and Food & Water Watch called on the EPA Office of Inspector General to expedite an investigation into the allegations.” The groups supplied evidence that professor David Allen, a former chairman of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, “disregarded red flags that his methane measuring equipment malfunctioned when collecting data from fracked well sites, a problem that caused his University of Texas study to lowball leak rates,” DeSmogBlog reports. The EPA Inspector General declined to investigate. It’s probable that the Clinton plan relies on the inaccurate findings of the EDF-funded studies. According to the complaint to the EPA, these are “high-profile studies that have been widely cited (197 times as of April 2016) and presented before White House and Congressional staff,” and as such “have given policy makers and the public an incorrect view.” Your support matters…

Independent journalism is under threat and overshadowed by heavily funded mainstream media.

You can help level the playing field. Become a member.

Your tax-deductible contribution keeps us digging beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that unearths what's really happening- without compromise.

Give today to support our courageous, independent journalists.

SUPPORT TRUTHDIG
In this Article:
#2016 election#climate change#coal#donald trump#fracking#global warming#hillary clinton#paris climate agreement#td-original